The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-10-25 - Workshop Agenda Packet - PC-HPCOCTOBER PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A. 7:00 P.M.* - CALL TO ORDER Roll Call: Chairman Oaxaca Vice Chairman Macias Commissioner Fletcher Commissioner Munoz Commissioner Wimberly B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individual members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. DISCUSSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION C1. PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2017-00697 — VAN DAELE HOMES, INC. — A Pre - Application Review of a proposed mixed use development consisting of 296 units consisting of bungalows, townhomes, and flats on a property consisting of multiple parcels with a combined area of 16.7 acres within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 4th Street, south of 6th Street, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues. The specific location of the project site is south of 6th Street and east of the future alignment of The Vine; APNs: 0210-082-41, -49, and -52. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20073. Page 1 of 3 OCTOBER PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA C2. NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN DRC2015-00750 —A Planning Commission Workshop to review the proposed conservation areas of the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project (NESAP). Related applications include: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00751, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00750, North Eastern Sphere Annexation DRC2015- 00732, and related Environmental Impact Report. D. ADJOURNMENT I, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 19, 2017, seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Lois J. Sc rader Planning Commission Secretary City of Rancho Cucamonga If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing Impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply Page 2 of 3 OCTOBER 25, PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $2,662 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CitvofRC.us. Page 3 of 3 Vicinity Map Planning Commission Workshop October 25, 2017 r-� I El L L I a U Q = S 1 N S 1 L 19ot�6-- 1 1 3ase Line ' J Chu rch oothillL'- Arrow 6th d Q a m 6th U 4th = _ se Line Church Foothill L J [ { Arrow d = I Cr = m 3 i w i NJ 6th w 4th 7k Meeting Location: City Hall/Council Chamber: 10500 Civic Center Drive Cl-Pre-Application Review DRC2017-00697—Van Daele Homes C2-North Eastern Sphere Annexation Specific Plan DRC2015-00750 NOTE: MAP HIGHLIGHTS ARE APPROXIMATE AND CONCEPTUAL ONLY STAFF REPORT DATE: October 25, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planners INITIATED BY: Mike Smith, Senior Planner SUBJECT: PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2017-00697 — VAN DAELE HOMES, INC. — A request for a Pre -Application Review of a proposed mixed use development consisting of 296 units consisting of bungalows, townhomes, and flats on a property consisting of multiple parcels with a combined area of 16.7 acres within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 4th Street, south of 6th Street, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues. The specific location of the project site is south of 6th Street and east of the future alignment of The Vine; APNs: 0210-082-41, -49, and -52. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20073. REVIEW PROCESS: The Pre -Application Review process provides a project proponent with the opportunity to present schematic designs to the Planning Commission prior to formal application submittal, in order to receive broad, general comments and directions. The focus of the meeting is a discussion by the Planning Commissioners regarding the technical and design issues related to the proposed project. The meeting is not a forum for debate and no formal decision or vote is made. After the meeting, Staff prepares general minutes of the meeting, which are provided to the applicant. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The project site is part of a property of 160 acres that was formerly developed with the privately owned and operated Empire Lakes Golf Course generally located in the center of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan (the "Specific Plan"). The Specific Plan has an overall area of 347 acres and is generally bound by 4th Street to the south, Milliken Avenue to the east, Cleveland Avenue and Utica Avenue to the west, and 8th Street and the BNSFIMetrolink rail line to the north. The golf course was closed in mid-2016 following the approval by the City Council of amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Development Code (related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115). These amendments were for the purpose of enabling the master developer, Lewis Management Corp., to develop a new mixed use and transit -oriented project ("Empire Lakes/The Resort") hereafter referred to as "the overall project". The subject property is bisected into south and north halves by 6th Street. The overall project is intended to be developed in phases by various developers. The first phase will include all of the southern half and a small portion of the northern half. The southern half currently consists of three (3) parcels with a combined area of about 84 acres. An application to subdivide it into 27 Cl—Pg1 PLANNING COMMISSION PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW STAFF REPORT DRC2017-00697 — VAN DAELE HOMES, INC. October 25, 2017 Page 2 parcels and one (1) "lettered" lot was approved by the Planning Commission on August 23, 2017 (related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20073). The primary purpose of this subdivision was to allow the sale of parts of the overall project to other developers such as the applicant, Van Daele Homes, Inc. The specific location of the project site is Parcels #4 through 15 (Exhibit C) of this approved subdivision. The site will have an area of 16.7 acres with a street frontage of about 310 feet along 6th Street_ It will be bound on the west by the future, north -south primary street ("The Vine") of the overall project. Following the construction of that street, the site will have a frontage along it of about 2,100 feet. Conceptual plans for a proposal by the master developer to construct a mixed use development on Parcel #26 located to the west of the project site (on the opposite side of The Vine) were reviewed by the Planning Commission during a Pre -Application Review workshop on May 24, 2017 (Pre -Application Review DRC2017-00170), That proposal has been formally submitted to the City for review (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20118 and Design Review DRC2017-00642). The master developer is also developing the designs for the various elements within The Vine that were generally described in the Specific Plan. They include functional features such as "tabletop" street crossings, roundabouts, and "pocket" parks, and decorative features such as art installations and landscaping. The Vine and these features will be presented to the Planning Commission during a separate, future Pre -Application Review workshop. The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations for, the project site and the surrounding properties (relative to the above -noted parcels) are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant' Mixed Use Mixed Use(Planning Area 1 z North Vacant (north half of former private golf course Mixed Use Mixed Use (Planning Area 1)2 South I Vacant' Mixed Use Mixed Use(Planning Area 1 z East Apartment Com lex Mixed Use Mixed Use(Planning Area 6 z West Vacant' Mixed Use Mixed Use(Planning Area 1 z 1 - part of the south haft of former private golf course. 2 - Empire Lakes Specific Plan PROJECT OVERVIEW: A. GENERAL; The applicant proposes a mixed use development that follows the intent of Empire Lakes/The Resort as described in the Specific Plan_ The Specific Plan is divided into twenty- four (24) "Placetypes". Eleven (11) Placetypes are located south of 6th Street. The land use characteristics and density of each Placetype are defined by six (6) different designations. The location of the project site (Exhibit D) is generally within Placetypes S-21 (Village Neighborhood (VN)) and S-22 (Core Living (CL)). It is also partially within the Mixed Use Overlay. The project consists of 296 single-family residential units as follows: 99 bungalows, 80 townhomes (or "RowTown"), and 117 stacked flats. The floor area of each unit type will be between 1,464 — 1,536 square feet (bungalow), 1,497 — 1,715 square feet (townhome), and 1,178 —1.731 square feet (stack flats)_ All of the residential units are for sale. Non-residential uses are not proposed within this project. The overall density of the project will be about 17.7 units/acre (296/16.7 acres). As the project site is within two separate Placetypes, it is subject to the density requirements of those Placetypes. The required density ranges for development Cl—Pg2 PLANNING COMMISSION PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW STAFF REPORT DRC2017-00697 —VAN DAELE HOMES, INC. October 25, 2017 Page 3 within Placetypes S-21 (Village Neighborhood (VN)) and S-22 (Core Living (CL)) are 16-28 du/acre and 18-35 dulacre per Figure 7.6 (page 7-16) of the Specific Plan. The community/recreation building and associated facilities/amenities shown near the northwest corner of the site, at the southeast corner of The Vine and 6th Street, is not a part of this project. It will be submitted for review by the City separately. The overall floor area of, and the parking calculations for, the project do not include this facility. B. ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING PLOTTING, AND SITE LAYOUT: The Specific Plan permits various different architectural themes throughout Empire Lakes/The Resort. The applicant has elected to use "Spanish", "Contemporary", and "Heritage" themes for the bungalows, stack flats, and townhomes, respectively. The number of floors (stories), interpretations of the themes, and floor plans are as follows: Building Type Number of Buildin s Number of Stories Architectural Theme Number of Interpretations Number of Floor Plans Bungalow 99 21.2 Spanish 53 3 Townhome Heritage 4- lex 7 3 25 4 5- lex 5 3 25 3 + 2 reverse 6- lex 1 3 25 3 + 2 reverse 7- lex 3 3 25 3 Stack Flat 13 2 Contemporary_24 5 'Plan 1 is a "carriage unit"; zthree floors when including the 3id floor option for Plan 3; 'not including the 3'd floor option for Plan 3, `than a in color scheme only; S assumed as no elevations for these buildings were provided The bungalow residences will be detached, i.e. will not share a building wall with an adjacent residence, similar to a standard two story single-family residence. Unique amongst the other units and building types will be Plan 1 of the bungalows. Excluding the entryway and porch, this unit will be a one floor residence located above a set of garages. The townhome residences will be attached in a row house arrangement consisting of between four (4) to seven (7) two- or three-story units. The stacked flats will be single -floor residences arranged vertically above one another similar to a multi -story apartment. Each of the stacked flat buildings will have a single entrance with a lobby. Access to all individual units within these buildings will be through interior hallways. Access to the second and third floors will be via shared elevators and interior stairways. The units within the other two building types will have direct, individual entrances. Based on the Site Plan provided by the applicant, the residential units are generally plotted together according to their typology. The bungalows will be clustered together in 33 sets with 3 units each and located generally along the east side of the project site. The townhomes will be grouped in 15 buildings with between 4 to 7 units each. They will be located generally along the west side of the project near The Vine and; therefore, will be the dominant building type along The Vine. The front elevation of most of the buildings along this street will face The Vine. The stacked flats will be grouped in 13 buildings with 5 units each. These buildings will be located at the north side of the project site in a reverse `L" shaped pattern around one of the recreational/communilty facilities that will be constructed for overall project. C1—pg3 PLANNING COMMISSION PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW STAFF REPORT DRC2017-00697 —VAN DAEI_E HOMES, INC. October 25, 2017 Page 4 Consistent with the requirements of the Specific Plan, the project will be an "open community". All streets within the interior of the project will be private, i.e. maintained by a homeowner's association. However, these streets will be open to the public (non-residents of the project). Primary vehicular access into the project will be private street connections to The Vine at various locations. As the presence of gates and fences will be minimal, external access by pedestrians, bicyclists. etc. generally will be available at a variety of locations. Vehicular and non -vehicular movement throughout the site will not be restricted by gates or fences except, for example, where it is required by Building Code or desired to control access into private spaces. Where buildings are adjacent to The Vine or one of the several private, interior streets, pedestrian access to them will be generally direct. Numerous courtyards are a prominent feature of the project. Residents of building types will have direct access to these semi -private open space amenities. Distributed throughout the project site are readily accessible open space areas, parklets, and dog parks. There also will be pedestrian pathways that will provide not only internal connectivity, but connectivity with the other parts of the overall project. All buildings/unit types will have direct access to enclosed garages. With the exception of Plans 2 and 3 of the bungalow building type, all garages are attached to the buildinglunit they serve, The garages for Plans 2 and 3 will be part of the same building for Plan 1, C. PARKING: Per Table 7.6 (Parking Standards) of the Specific Plan, residential development of 30 units/acre or less shall provide parking consistent with the requirements described in Table 17.64.050-1 of the Development Code. The parking requirements for the project are based on the number of bedrooms per unit as follows: Type of Building Number of Units Number of Bedrooms Parking Ratio (per unit) Number of Spaces Required Bungalow 99 Plan 1 33 2 or 3' 2 66 Plan 2 33 4 2.5 83 Plan 3 33 3 or 4' 2 2.52 66 833� Subtotal 215 2321 Townhome 80 Plan 1 21 3 or 4' 2 2.52 42 533 Plan 2 23 3 2 46 Plan 3 27 3 or 4' 2 2.5z 54 1 68-, Plan 4 9 4 2.5 23 Subtotal 165 1903 Stack Flat 117 Plan 1 25 2 2 50 Plan 2 13 2 2 26 Plan 3 25 3 or 2' 2 50 Plan 4 26 2 2 52 Plan 5 28 3 or 2' 2 56 Subtotal 234 Cl—Pg4 PLANNING COMMISSION PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW STAFF REPORT DRC2017-00697 — VAN DAELE HOMES, INC. October 25, 2017 Page 5 GuestNisitor 296 nla 1 (per 3 units) 98 Parkin Total Required 7121 711 " 175431 752 4 Total Provided 758 ' Optional number of bedrooms 2 the number of required parking spaces increases to 2.51unit when there are 4 bedrooms, 3maximum when all units have the optional number of bedrooms `based on the applicant's parking ca'cuiati.,ns see below Based on the parking calculations performed by Staff and the amount of parking proposed by the applicant, the project complies with the Development Code. However, there is a discrepancy between the parking calculations in the table above and the applicant's parking calculations on Sheet PA of their plans. This may be the result of rounding error; Staff will coordinate with the applicant to ensure that the amount of parking that is required and provided is correct. Most of the parking that has been provided to meet the parking requirements for the project will be in the aforementioned garages. Although the remainder will be on -street parking (on The Vine and interior streets) and in unenclosed parking stalls, per Section 7.3.5 -- Parking Requirements (page 7-45), all on -site and on -street parking proposed for a specific project can be credited towards the parking requirement provided that this solution is validated by a parking study. D. WALLS/FENCES: The bungalows will have private yard areas enclosed by walls 6 feet in height for privacy and security. Similarly, both the bungalows and the townhomes will have patio areas enclosed by 42-inch high walls. Otherwise, no significant walls/fences will be constructed with this project. There is an existing wrought iron fence along the property line that separates the overall project site and the apartment complex to the east. This fence was installed during the construction of that apartment complex. Although there are no openings in the fence to allow access through it, the applicant has anticipated the potential for that to occur by proposing a pedestrian pathway (at "31 Place Space" #15 on Sheet L-4, Exhibit J) that could connect to an existing recreation area on the neighboring property. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff comments are provided in the outline below for consideration/discussion by the Commission. DISCUSSION OUTLINE: Architecture — The Specific Plan permits various different architectural themes throughout Empire Lakes/The Resort. Although the architecture for the project is presumably still undergoing development, Staff notes that it is generally consistent with the intent and vision of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan lists several standard characteristics that must be incorporated into the architecture (Exhibit E) to ensure that the design is consistent with the selected subject theme. Further enhancements to reinforce this consistency should be incorporated including the addition of other material slfinishes, details/trim, and colors. Staff also recommends more variation in the architecture of Schemes A and B of the Contemporary and Heritage themes as, aside from the color scheme, they are practically indistinguishable. As more information and details regarding the architecture are provided, Staff will provide comments/corrections accordingly. Building plotting -- One of the design goals for the overall project is an urban streetscape where the buildings functionally and aesthetically "frame" the streets. The applicant has C1—Pg5 PLANNING COMMISSION PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW STAFF REPORT DRC2017-00697 —VAN DAELE HOMES, INC. October 25, 2017 Page 6 utilized the street setback standards (Exhibit F) described in the Specific Plan. The buildings along The Vine appear to be about 5 to 10 feet from the property line which is within the minimum and maximum range allowed. However, elsewhere, the buildings appear to be plotted too far, and/or are all at the same distance, from the street. To address these conditions, the buildings should be shifted closer to the street and their distance from the street should be varied within the setback range that is allowed in Table 7.5 and Figure 7.40 of the Specific Plan (Exhibit F and G). Building massing and scale — Based on the elevations/rendering provided, the massing and scale of all the buildings are interesting and provide the required variation to ensure that a functional and aesthetic "frame" of the streets is achieved. As the side and rear elevations/renderings of the buildings (and the elevations for the carriage unit) are not available and only the elevations/renderings of the 4-plex townhome were submitted, comprehensive comments regarding them cannot be provided. However, Staff notes that architectural enhancements and treatment shall be provided in balanced, equal proportion on all elevations. Similarly, the larger townhomes (5- to 7-plex) should not be merely larger versions of the 4-plex townhomes. Density — The density for the project within Placetypes S-21 (Village Neighborhood (VN)) and S-22 (Core Living (CL)) are, respectively, 18.18 du/acre (204 units111.22 acres) and 11.86 du/acre (65 unitsl5.48 acres). Part of the project does not comply with the density requirements outlined in the Specific Plan. However, per Section 7.3.2 -- Placetype Descriptions (page 7-18), to maintain flexibility for responding to changing community needs and market conditions over the build -out, intensity may be transferred between parcels consistent with the Placetype intensity, provided the minimum required units are achieved. Where density transfers between parcels, in no case shall development exceed the net development total (residential and non-residential) established by Table 7.1: PA1 Development Program. Therefore, if the proposed project is not modified to comply with the required density, then the master developer and applicant should be aware that future development of the overall project will have to account for this and be developed accordingly. Land use mix (residential) — Per Table 7.1 (Development Program) of the Specific Plan (Exhibit H), a maximum of 3,450 units are permitted to be constructed within the overall project. Of this amount, 1,450 units are permitted south of 6th Street. The proposal is for 269 residential units. Combined with the above -noted development on Parcel #26 located to the west of the project site, on the opposite side of The Vine, that is currently under review by the City (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20118 and Design Review DRC2017-00642) that consists of 648 residential units, there are a total of 917 residential units proposed at this time. This results in a remainder of 506 residential units that can be constructed south of 6th Street. • Land use mix (non-residential) — Per Table 7.1 (Development Program) of the Specific Plan (Exhibit H), a minimum of 50,000 square feet of non-residential uses is required within the Mixed Use Overlay (with a minimum of 20,000 square feet south of 6th Street). As proposed, there will be public non-residential uses. The remainder of the required non-residential floor area (3,800 square feet) will have to be fulfilled in Placetypes 5-18 or 5-20. C1—Pg6 PLANNING COMMISSION PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW STAFF REPORT DRC2017-00697 — VAN DAELE HOMES, INC. October 25, 2017 Page 7 REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS: The proposed project will require the following entitlements (minor applications are not listed): 1. Design Review - $11,187; and 2. Environmental Assessment, Initial Study - $2,853 NOTE: Fees are subject to change by Council Resolution and are revised annually on July 1st. SPECIAL STUDIES: The Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the overall project evaluated it as a whole. To determine the environmental documents that must be prepared for subsequent site - specific projects, the following special studies will be required at the time of formal submittal: 1. Air quality study; 2. Noise study; 3. Parking study 4. Photometric study; 5. Trip generation and trip distribution analysis; and 6. Water Quality Management Plan NOTE: Additional special studies may be required following the formal submittal of the required applications. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A -- Vicinity Map Exhibit B — Project Description (prepared by the applicant) Exhibit C — Project Site Location (within Tentative Tract Map 20105) Exhibit D — Figure 7.6 -- Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype Exhibit E — Placetype Descriptions Exhibit F — Table 7.5 — Perimeter Setbacks Exhibit G — Table 7.40 — Collector Street (cross-section) Exhibit H — Table 7.1 — Development Program Exhibit I — Pre -Application Review Department Comments Exhibit J — Full-sized Plans (distributed under separate cover) CB:MS/jy C1—pg7 UpAra r wxq"g 'o �V. a '"V ' —t 1-.Pw� 1.nw ic lk m v it —v G I C' H3GI ILI W4=0 W-"PW VIP I&NO RD a r AN Fr CIA 4p Im 9 rmAu p A%n. jk 3PALO 1 &KM 57 �'PALOALIIST r BALSA 51 ;g. . pplW :Wl" 1IU, P. t. r aeon kLw.'tt yaaw RUT CHl6iGdST 1' g"14., ve I "2111 1, cwm t; At f ST 09 "67 ST '-e Mary 11w"51 3 ownMOdIL� TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER NWOFUC Ira IFOLOTHILLSUBtLh" 66- i IX' UMIT cffy D"5T �HALL POW ,.F MW L rw F1 1, P DR- 9 0 i /...M ffi - AFtF]QW--130UTS- I-Al"CF lwmcl falmo WICT fm ST ME SME: JERSEY BLVD -1 EXHIBIT A NETROUNK r"N 09=P" ct I sm"MO POMOACCI *)Wmocl Ir tOIrLB, OIQAyTmv ale FMPLkF UA715 GOLF TH ST, -fiTH ST, L d 1 TWAWA PRO• 11 Wmim 11110011OUT -, 47h ST Cl —Pg8 OWARIO MILLS n VAN DAELE HOMES Pre -Application Review - Letter of Explanation The Resort, Van Daele Homes Van Daele Homes, in partnership with Lewis Management Corporation, are please to provide this Design Review Pre -Application for your consideration. The project is located near the southeast corner of 61h Street and the Vine Street within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project. This project encompasses approximately 16.7-acres with a combination of diverse plan types and landscape paseos designed to complement the overall character of "The Resort" Master Planned Community. Architecture. The architecture design is a mix of three unique products with varying floor plans, elevations, styles and color pallets. Each architectural style has been designed using the elements set forth in the Specific Plan while maintaining a contemporary tone that ties into the designs proposed for the adjacent uses (apartments and clubhouse not part of this application). The pedestrian character of the community is also emphasized by the placement of entry patios and courtyards at the front elevations facing paseos and greenbelts, with garages positioned at the rear or side elevations along driveway and interior streets. Bungalow Product (Spanish). The Spanish style was incorporated into the bungalow product as a more contemporary adaptation of the Spanish Style with flat roof tiles (as opposed to s-tile) while still incorporating a larger massing of windows and arched entry door elements noted in the Spanish Character of the Specific Plan. The Bungalow product is a cluster of detached style condominiums and a bungalow carriage home over the garages. Townhome Product (Heritage). The Heritage style was incorporated into the design of the Townhome product to serve as a transition between the adjacent product Spanish and Contemporary styles. The steeper roof pitches and use of siding and ornamental iron enhances the street scene along the Vine Street. The townhomes buildings plotted along the Vine Street are of difference sizes and color treatments which will provide a pleasant variety in massing and roof variation. Flats Product (Contemporary). The Contemporary style was selected to complement the adjacent contemporary look of the adjacent Recreational Facility. Each building is comprised of nine homes each with a dedicated 2-car garage. A centrally located elevator within the building provides for ease of access to each floor of the building. Product Type SQFT Range tt of Bedrooms Stories Garages Bungalow 1,464 —1,536 3-4 2-3 2-car (side by side) Townhome 1,497 —1,715 3-4 3 2-car (side by side) Flats 1,178--1,731 2-3 3 2-car (side by side and tandem) EXHIBIT B —pg9 Landscape. The landscape plant palette and amenities are designed to provide an eclectic contemporary style to tie in the architecture of these products as well as the adjacent apartments and clubhouse uses. Greenbelts and paseos provide friendly pedestrian access to the surroundings while incorporating passive activities and outdoor gatherings areas (i.e. bark park, outdoor dining, rose gardens). Planting areas will include a combination of access trees and shrubs that will provide a lush appearance while maintaining a moderate to low water usage. Turf areas will be limited to areas for passive activities. Site Plan. The site plan has been carefully designed to include the pedestrian connections and circulation elements displayed in the development package submittals for the Specific Plan. This includes several paseo connections to the Vine Street as well as interior circulation along streets and between buildings. Building setbacks will adhere to the Specific Plan guidelines and take advantage of the reduced front setback to encourage pedestrian access. Parking. Careful consideration was taken in the site plan to provide ample parking for residents and guests. Each home includes a dedicated 2-car garage. The site boasts over 40 excess parking stalls under the standard floor plan, bedroom count configuration and provides an excess of 4 parking stalls in the event that all available bedroom conversation options were selected. The project CC&Rs will also include language and enforcement procedures to mandate that residents utilize both garage spaces prior to parking in the parking stall areas. C1—Pg10 y 1do5Ed 3#-I.L t 31 UVINK s \ I � cn — f EXHIBIT C r-I n_-1-1 A063d 3Hl C'd�! j�tiaj o a 4. '^ `.+. t:]:L �'.cr:•i !]YL'. 3J_7:`.3: 3A11VIN31EMEM S R g e .o mnau S 3ZOab'Lvl�i s> x.: •YJ a�'»a �.�.e ! i wlffj�j Er I a — - - - - - '---_---. tea,• -. - ._ - _------ n�o P � � I I i I I L ## I J L._...------- Y ' x I _r r r y yns I a 1 � r r 1 r r r 1 � r t' `- F- LI-rgIL 1 0 38 ]Hi aw Sm\' ]LVIa l m. C.i -rgia Metrofink San Ber7ardino Llnezz��, 1 1 P F P 111 1 P 11 P P 1 12 1 :I: ' ! F 14 1 . .. I . . I . . . .. Pocket Park Q LIN N-12 TIOAC 6th Street soul YJ j Urban Neighborhood (UN) F w 6 Core Living (CL) Village Neighborhood (VN) Figure 7.6: Conceptual Recreadon (REQ 0-io WA.r- MU Overlay Development Plan by Placetype R 4th Street p I I-562111WT.- Note Figure not to scopir mpireLakes EXHIBIT D C1-Pg14 D C'Or-lY L-tvnq (CL) Place�,gpe D .msit,, i 8-35 DU/acre hiniar% land 1).r- Medium High Density P_s+denticil The CL Plocetype is a residential designatrdn 6a3 nay include a broad range of attached and /or small las detached neighbo-l=ds. Parcels des'gnated as CL should ha'ie pedestrian patkva'rs neiiahbofhoocls and connechons to coinrnunih destinations Building darms should include architectura1l•,, appiopriale rnassincr v., th elevations racing the street 3,d Placa spaces, and the VIre as applicable. 2 High -density inspirational images Empire Lakes EXHIBIT E C1—Pg15 L viilcoe lleglr oorhood NIA) Pkaoet---yo- G�nsit, 16,28 DU%a; re f'rirrlaiy Eunci Us_ Medium Dansit/ Residential The VN Placetype is residentially focu7ed and i-,Iendad fo, gar=ous forms of detached and at --ached configurations. Housing types could range from small lot detached single -far -lily io ca`tached configwations Layo.-t, d-sicrn, blocl. €ength, grid oorl,ing should be suitnhle for ti,is setting will. elevntions #a-iny the street, 3rd Place spaces wid ilia Alin- as appllcaUe. Homes Should be de3igned v., th p'Ivate open space, and rleiq,b-)fhcods plannea —ith 3rd P-ac= hens+ anal spacescnnnecting to adla�`=w n-ighbofhoods Alkwhed and det,i,hed medium density rnspiroionnl irnng-s Empire Lakes C1—Pg16 7th Street Melrolink Stolion $ih $IT* S-14 5 22 1 5-15 S•16 .5-21 5•ST ��! • S-20 $•!a * Note: Figure S.19 not to scale. B �+ ige C,:,r 1:_1fGio 1S Edge condlIlOn5 or PAI sha'l be treated cons sl'nt vvlih table 7.5 Penn-e?er Setbci 5 standards to ma,nt-oin a sensitive and consistent treatment fof adjomincq propelhes All internal parcel =-tbacks are established b./ 71h Street ToUe 7 Developme-nt Standards, Ah Street Figure 7.17: Setback Locations Table 7.5. Perimeter Setbacks Al I se'bacl's eslabllsied by t^Is section ra'e rn--nirnum regoirernents and SJC.,wcl 1'J e 1crQaC1111'@I l; �Ierrnitie�� 71' 1[IC)iF %.� Perrn:11'ed En: roat-hmenty legend PAI B-rung:iry Sel[N irk:' O////////////// 10 feel minimum O♦ • • • • • • 2 lee! minimum PAI Rtght-cf-V-'riy SetIIC36 O10 feet m nimum O•966•9 5feet minimum OT 8 0 0 feet minimum ®d y� 5 feet minimum OM w m M 5 feel minimum O Pa—YN-I N-3 N-4 N-6 N-7 N-10 N-11 N-12g— Fl ure 7.18A' Primary Edge a Section 1 Edry 106 None S-14 S-15 S-17 S-18 S-19 ge N-8 N-9 520 S-21 S-27 Figure 7188- Res dent a: Edge Sect art O2 Rail Rood 2 It No1e N-1 N-2 N-3 Figure 719. Rail Road Edge Sedan t Alh R 61j7 20 feeFigure 733: 6th Street O Slreets 10 h based on N 7 N 8 S.14 S 19 5-22 S 23 S-24 Adjacency grading Figure 7.35: 4th Street solutions N-2 N-5 N-6 N-7 N-8 N-9 N-10 O The Vino 56 10 legit N-11 N-12 N-13 N-14 N 15 5 16 5.17 5-18 S-19 5.20 S-21 5 22 5-23 S-24 O Secondary 0 h 10 feet N-3 N-12 Entry A --- O S E onda�ry 5 ft 10 feet N-9 WO Secondary 5 ft 10 feet N-•1 N-5 N-6 N.1 J Entry C Collector S7reels. 0 ft low All (internal to parcels) 1. All setbacks are measured from the primary wall plane of the building to the property line. rf - 7 mpire Lakes Figure 731. The Vine Figure 737: Secondary Entry Road 'A' Figure 7.38: Secondary Entry Road 'B' Figure 7.39: Secondary Entry Road 'C' Figure 740: Collector Road EXHIBIT F C1-Pg17 Planning Area I� RAMC. Io C-rAVCa :aa tASP S-3-Aa-=A 18 SaEGFqC P42,` • Private resid nhal streets inter'or to oarcP s should be narro.%. and intimate provid'na on-s'reel paring when-ver fe� islble. The Iota}ion aria: aliar--ment of re&denhal streets for inter or c rculation vvllt be estab (shad of the time o` de,,elopm-ant Patina ma/ be pr-,.tded, as feas,ble on o,-e ar bntl, side; of the str-}et I �4 j�0✓arh'ra�ts H 47-In cr 9 - - - f]rn,'e i '7 '/-- i0' —/ --- -- v CO 54 r, Se=:e Perrr.=aa ••- - ..5's Note: figure not to scale Figure 7.40: Collector Road D_'i-=Lr;P% =-NT P;. , Gu I J,. rr E 2016 C1—Pg18 PlanningArea RA,,.c-io Cucwo,\ aA IASP SJa-AaEA 18 Sas�- = C P-A% Transit (T) 1.2 25,000 " M1 671 Section 7 Mixed Use (MU) 27 75,000 14.40 0 109 3.0 combines! 35.55 0 164 Urban Neighborhood (UN) 201 24.80 463 1.611 Core Living (CL) 26.2 18.35 472 918 Village Neighborhood (VN) 12.6 16-28 201 352 Polential Subtotal 65.9 100,000 176 - 479 1,157 3. t53 Net Developable Minimum Requiredl')/ Maximum Permitted 65.9 100,000 24.2 30.4 1,594 2,000 Table Holes f (1) Exact acreage, configuration, a -id boundary Ines subject to final Recreation (REC) including Urban 3.9 (t} design. Minimum required units Plazas regulated by target units on a per MWD Easement OS 1.4 For basis See 7.7 Implementation Roads/Miss- 05 12 1 for parcel for et units. tracking and Non -Developable Subtotal 162 (4) density Iranslers Gross Developable Minimum Required')/ f 2', Development of each parcel Maximum Permitted 82.0 100,000 19.4 - 24.4 1,594 2,000 may occur at any density within the established range, however, in no case shall the total number of dweihn units developed exceed the GrossAl Total of 3,450 dwelling units Q, Development SF in the T Placelype was not included in the EIR analysis because it is adjacent to a Transit Mixed Use (MU) 2.9 35,0GO ' 4_10 0 115 Station and provides Transit supportive Coro Living (CL) 14.1 18.35 254 491 uses. Therefore the 220,000 SF maximum is equivalent to the Village Neighborhood (VN) 500 - 16-28 840 1,400 195.000 SF in the EIR. Potent.al Subtotal 670 35,000 •5.7 . 3-3 0 1.053 2,00$ (4; Development square footage Net Developable Minimum Required))/ 670 35,OOD 15.8.21,7 1,056 1,450 within the REC Placelype is for Maximum Rermilted private use by residents of PAI, nol contributing to trip generation of the site, and is therefore not subject to the square footage maximum Recreation (REC) 4 3 (4� established by this table or the Roods-'Mssc OS 7.1 - applicable Elk traffic study. Any non - Non -Developable Siblotal 11 4 14.5 Gross Developable Minimum Requiref/ 784 35,000 13.5. 18.5 1,056 1,450 Maximum Permitted Minimum Required SF North of 6th Street 20,0001'1 P+lininx m Required SF Sou'h of 61h Street 20,000"1 Consistent with underlying Plocetype Maximum Mixed Use (MU) Permitted 85,000,11 Net Developable Minimum Required"J/ 132 8 220,000 20,0 - 26.0 2,650 3,450 Net Development Total Maximum Gross Developable Minimum Required')/ Gross PA16D.4 220,000 1 b-5.21.5 2,650 3,450 Total residential use developed for publ c access within the RECpPlacetyppe shall be subject to the 220,000 SF maximum. The City of Rancho Cucamonga may include up to 25,000 SF and up to 1.75 acres of Planning Area N-13 for Mun-cipal Joint Use Fac:14ies. (5; A minimum of 50,000 SF of non-residenlial development in the Ovedoy is required; ifonly20,000 SF is developed south of 6th Street, 30,000 SF of non-residenlial use is required north of 61h. (6) Aggreggale of al, PAI non. residenho development, (excluding recreation area development within the REC Placely es, shall not exceed the 220,000 SF maximum. D_1r_cPvEvT PAN A%D I Jur1E 2016 EXHIBIT `-s" PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2017-00697 VAN DAELE HOMES, INC. The following preliminary comments are provided by the other City Departments for your review: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Developer shall install a dark fiber conduit package fronting the development. Two 4" Schedule 40 PVC conduits, along with three 1 W innerducts in one of the 4" conduits, per City Standard 145, with connection through the parkway to each lot or parcel (fiber -to -the curb, FTTC). The size, placement, and location of the conduit shall be shown on the Street Improvement Plans and subject to Engineering Services Department review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. 2. Rights -of -way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross -lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 3. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the final parcel map. 4. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. 5. An irrevocable offer of dedication for roadway purposes shall be made for the private streets. 6. Developer shall execute a Line Extension Agreement for electric service and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility requirements and dedicate such facilities to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility. The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility shall be the electrical service provider for all project related development. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT - TRAFFIC 7. Construct the full width improvements of The Vine from 4th Street to 6th Street, including all traffic signals, signing, striping, curb, gutter, street lights, and sidewalk. The Vine" frontage improvements shall be in accordance with Empire Lakes Specific Plan as required and including: A. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drive approaches, table top pedestrian crossings, signing, and striping as required. Coordinate with City staff for street light design and installation requirements. EXHIBIT I C1—Pg20 B. Driveways shall be in accordance with the City Driveway Policy. C. All public improvements including access ramps shall be constructed to the latest ADA standards. D. Roundabout shall be in accordance with FHWA guidelines. E. The temporary "Vine" along the easement in the remainder parcel shall be constructed and open prior to issuance of building permits. 8. Install frontage improvements and median improvements along 6th Street. 6th Street frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Major Divided Arterial" standards and Empire Lakes Specific Plan as required and including: 1. Provide, protect, or, repair existing curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, cycle tracks, signing, and striping as required. 2. Provide traffic signals at 6th Street/"The Vine" and 6th Street/Cleveland Avenue and related equipment including traffic signal interconnect to Utica Avenue and to Milliken Avenue. 3. Provide a traffic signal maintenance easement as required. City will maintain the traffic signals and related equipment only after funded by CFD. 4. Remove and reconstruct the median for "The Vine" intersection, and provide full intersection improvements including single eastbound and westbound left turn movements. 5. All public improvements including access ramps shall be constructed to the latest ADA standards. 1. Install all storm drain improvements from 6th Street to 4th Street. 2. The CFD for public improvements shall be finalized prior to any building permits. 3. All improvements shall be per the Empire Lakes Specific Plan and City Standards. FIRE DEPARTMENT/BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 1. Review the project data it appears that some single family homes (Bungalows) are being proposed as sprinklered per NFPA 13R; also, make sure that all the R-2's are sprinklered with the correct system 13R or 13 based on their type of construction and allowable area calculations. 2. In the formal submittal submit plans that are full sized, scaled and dimensioned, additional fire lanes may be required. C1—Pg21 3. Make provisions for roof access for the multifamily R2 buildings per RCFPD Standard 5- 6. BUILDING AND SAFETY (GRADING) DEPARTMENT 1. A site plan was submitted for a pre -application review. At this pre -application review neither a conceptual grading and drainage plan, nor a preliminary water quality management site and drainage plan were available for review. When these documents are submitted, the Building and Safety Department, Grading Services, will provide comments. Please note that all proposed areas of construction and impervious surfaces outside of the property boundaries shall be shown on both the conceptual grading and drainage plan and the preliminary water quality management site and drainage plan. C1--Pg22 STAFF REPORT DATE: October 25, 2017 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett. City Planner® INITIATED BY: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner SUBJECT: NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN DRC2015- 00750 — A Planning Commission Workshop to review the proposed conservation areas of the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project (NESAP). Related applications include: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00751, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00750, North Eastern Sphere Annexation DRC2015- 00732, and related Environmental Impact Report. PROCESS: The purpose of this workshop is to give the Planning Commission an overview of the proposed North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project (NESAP), specifically as it relates to proposed conservation areas within the overall project area. A discussion of the proposed development areas within the NESAP will occur at a December 13, 2017, Planning Commission Workshop. A series of workshops will be conducted with the public on later dates, as identified below. Following development of the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the NESAP will be scheduled for a public hearing at which time public testimony will be taken and consideration of the proposed project will occur. At this workshop, the only action taken will be to receive and file the report presented. As future public hearings are required, the Commission is requested to refrain from commentary for or against the project and ask for clarification of project elements as necessary. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed NESAP project area contains approximately 4,115 acres of land and extends from Haven Avenue, easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the National Forest boundary (Exhibit A). The entirety of the project will include a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, North Eastern Sphere Annexation Specific Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment, North Eastern Sphere Annexation, and all related environmental documentation. Currently, the majority of the project site is designated as Flood Control and Public Utilities Land on the City's General Plan and portions are pre -zoned by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan as Flood Control, Resource Conservation, and Hillside Residential. Initial design considerations propose maintaining the northerly 2,915 acres as a "Conservation Priority Area", and establishing the lower 1,200 acres of "Development Priority Area" in the southerly portion generally located between Milliken Avenue and Day Creek Avenue, north of Banyan Street (Exhibit B). Early concepts for the development priority area include a mix of residential product types, a central commercial "town center" with neighborhood retail and restaurants, and public uses and amenities arranged in a compact and walkable land use pattern to encourage active living. C2—Pg 1 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN DRC2015-00750 October 25, 2017 Page 2 Within the 2,915 acre Conservation Priority Area, conservation is a priority, however, the area contains existing development consisting of approximately 5 single-family residences and the Lingyen Mountain Temple. Within the 1,200 acre Development Priority Area, development is a priority, however, initial considerations include approximately 490 acres of Open Space/Conservation, approximately 143 acres of existing Utility Easement, and approximately 579 acres of developable area. The NESAP Conservation Priority Area is being established with the overall goal of conserving and protecting the foothill environments. The NESAP considers conserving a connected system of biologically viable habitat lands that reclaim natural processes and protect sensitive species. This includes the development of a preserve system that will enhance, protect, and maintain ecosystem functions and values, while maintaining scenic beauty, natural biological diversity, and providing compatible recreational opportunities that enhance the local quality of life. Additionally, the NESAP will provide a consistent regulatory process that will allow for the efficient permitting of residential and commercial development in appropriate locations within the Development Priority Area. PROJECT STATUS: In January 2015, the City Council reaffirmed the goal of pre -zoning and annexation of a 4,115- acre portion of the City's Sphere -of -Influence. In May 2015, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with Sargent Town Planning (STP) to prepare the NESAP. The area to be annexed is currently within the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino and consists mostly of undeveloped lands and open space. City staff, STP, and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) have had several meetings with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to discuss the proposed project and elicit comments regarding potential environmental constraints. The project area was evaluated for the presence of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) which was not found within the project boundaries, and the presence and quality of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS). STP continues to address biological resource assessments related to development of the NESAP and Draft EIR. In July 2017, the City Council approved an amendment to the scope of work and budget for STP to address additional environmental issues and engineering work related to the development of a project Tentative Tract Map. The NESAP Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated to public agencies with discretionary approval power over the project, i.e. "Responsible Agencies" and Native American Governments, and made available for review at the Archibald and Biane Libraries and on the City's website from September 11, 2017 to October 10, 2017. A revised NOP, which will include a more comprehensive project description, will be distributed in late October 2017 for an additional 30- day review period (which exceeds the minimum 30-day requirement). On September 27, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public scoping meeting on the NOP to elicit comments identifying issues that should be included in the EIR. The Commissioners agreed with the comprehensive list of environmental topics to be addressed in the EIR, and supported Staff's planned efforts for obtaining public input on the project. NESAP Community Meetings are scheduled for the following dates and locations. All workshops are scheduled from 6:30 pm to C2—Pg 2 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN DRC2015-00750 October 25, 2017 Page 2 8:30 pm. Notification of these Community Meetings was mailed to all property owners east of Haven Avenue, and north of the 210 freeway, as well as property owners east of the NESAP project area in Fontana, and west of the NESAP project area in the City's Sphere of Influence. • October 26, 2017, Los Osos High School Auditorium. • November 2, 2017, Day Creels Intermediate Multi -Purpose Room. • November 9, 2017, Summit Intermediate Multi -Purpose Room. • November 16, 2017, Los Osos High School Cafeteria. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - NESAP Location Map Exhibit B - NESAP Conservation Priority Area CB:TG/Is C2—Pg 3 E 7� rz Al rrT